elongated double space

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Okay, I guess I'm not seeing what we disagree on here. I prefer to use
"which" for nonrestrictive clauses and "that" for restrictive. Herb
evidently has the same preference and so is changing "which" to "that" in
restrictive clauses. You say that "which" is equally correct. I'm not
disputing that, merely saying that I personally prefer "that" and think
"which" sounds stilted. What I don't understand about your initial reply is
what you consider "backward" about changing "which" to "that."

Oh, wait, I think I see what you mean. What you were saying was "backward"
was this statement: "The only time I'll use 'which' is when there's
ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not." In the context, I
thought it was clear that what I meant was something like: "The only time
I'll use 'which' [instead of 'that' in a restrictive clause] is when there's
ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not."

In other words, I invariably use "which" for nonrestrictive clauses and
ordinarily use "that" for restrictive clauses but may use "which" in a
restrictive clause if there is some ambiguity about it or (additionally)
when there is another "that" in the sentence so close that the compounding
of "thats" is awkward (and of course "that which" is an exception as well).

As for ambiguity, sometimes an editor is faced with a situation in which an
author has used "which" without a preceding comma. From previous experience
with the author's prose and punctuation, the editor knows that the writer is
not good with commas, so the absence of a comma doesn't necessary mean that
the clause is restrictive, nor does the use of "which" guarantee that it's
nonrestrictive. Often it's difficult to determine the writer's intent.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

What Herb said is he "change incorrect whiches to thats," and that
can only mean changing restrictive relatives introduced by "which."
You said you'd only use "which" when there's potential ambiguity as to
whether it's restrictive or not -- but introducing a restrictive with
"which" _could_ make it read as a non-restrictive (since "that" can't
be used with a non-restrictive).

Fowler would _prefer_ the distinction to be always observed, but he
says (2nd ed. top of p. 626; repeated from the 1st ed.), "Some there
are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend
that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers."

 

[Greg Maxey]

Bloated post count = Bloated post count + 1

Okay, I guess I'm not seeing what we disagree on here. I prefer to use
"which" for nonrestrictive clauses and "that" for restrictive. Herb
evidently has the same preference and so is changing "which" to
"that" in restrictive clauses. You say that "which" is equally
correct. I'm not disputing that, merely saying that I personally
prefer "that" and think "which" sounds stilted. What I don't
understand about your initial reply is what you consider "backward"
about changing "which" to "that."
Oh, wait, I think I see what you mean. What you were saying was
"backward" was this statement: "The only time I'll use 'which' is
when there's ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or
not." In the context, I thought it was clear that what I meant was
something like: "The only time I'll use 'which' [instead of 'that' in
a restrictive clause] is when there's ambiguity about whether the
clause is restrictive or not."
In other words, I invariably use "which" for nonrestrictive clauses
and ordinarily use "that" for restrictive clauses but may use "which"
in a restrictive clause if there is some ambiguity about it or
(additionally) when there is another "that" in the sentence so close
that the compounding of "thats" is awkward (and of course "that
which" is an exception as well).
As for ambiguity, sometimes an editor is faced with a situation in
which an author has used "which" without a preceding comma. From
previous experience with the author's prose and punctuation, the
editor knows that the writer is not good with commas, so the absence
of a comma doesn't necessary mean that the clause is restrictive, nor
does the use of "which" guarantee that it's nonrestrictive. Often
it's difficult to determine the writer's intent.

Yes, the commas should be an indicator, but often there are commas
anyway because of some intervening parenthetical phrase/clause. The
ambiguity rarely surfaces in my own writing, but when I'm editing
someone else's writing and am not confident of the writer's intent...

And I don't see how that's backward, since I would not ever use
"that" in a
nonrestrictive clause.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org

messageI think that's backwards ... anyway non-restrictive relatives have
commas around them, restrictive relatives don't.

--
--
Greg Maxey

See my web site http://gregmaxey.mvps.org
for an eclectic collection of Word Tips.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the
strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them
better. The credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is
marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly...who knows
the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a
worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high
achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while
daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and
timid souls who have never known neither victory nor defeat." - TR

 

[Peter T. Daniels]

Okay, I guess I'm not seeing what we disagree on here. I prefer to use
"which" for nonrestrictive clauses and "that" for restrictive. Herb
evidently has the same preference and so is changing "which" to "that" in
restrictive clauses. You say that "which" is equally correct. I'm not
disputing that, merely saying that I personally prefer "that" and think
"which" sounds stilted. What I don't understand about your initial reply is
what you consider "backward" about changing "which" to "that."

Oh, wait, I think I see what you mean. What you were saying was "backward"
was this statement: "The only time I'll use 'which' is when there's
ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not." In the context, I
Yes

thought it was clear that what I meant was something like: "The only time
I'll use 'which' [instead of 'that' in a restrictive clause] is when there's
ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not."

In other words, I invariably use "which" for nonrestrictive clauses and
ordinarily use "that" for restrictive clauses but may use "which" in a
restrictive clause if there is some ambiguity about it or (additionally)

Do you have an example where "restrictive 'which'" could clarify an
ambiguity?

when there is another "that" in the sentence so close that the compounding
of "thats" is awkward (and of course "that which" is an exception as well).

Yes, the compounding of "that"s is the most usual reason for using
"which." But also a preponderance of th-sounds, or even too many short-
a sounds in the paragraph.

As for ambiguity, sometimes an editor is faced with a situation in which an
author has used "which" without a preceding comma. From previous experience
with the author's prose and punctuation, the editor knows that the writeris
not good with commas, so the absence of a comma doesn't necessary mean that
the clause is restrictive, nor does the use of "which" guarantee that it's
nonrestrictive. Often it's difficult to determine the writer's intent.

One of my professors (a native speaker of Hungarian who had lived in
the US for 20 years when we first met, and in Paris for ten years
before that), who was an excellent English stylist, said that the one
thing she absolutely could not fathom was the restrictive/
nonrestrictive distinction. (In German, they put commas around both
kinds. In French they far more often use participial phrases instead
of relative clauses generally.)

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org

What Herb said is he "change incorrect whiches to thats," and that
can only mean changing restrictive relatives introduced by "which."
You said you'd only use "which" when there's potential ambiguity as to
whether it's restrictive or not -- but introducing a restrictive with
"which" _could_ make it read as a non-restrictive (since "that" can't
be used with a non-restrictive).

Fowler would _prefer_ the distinction to be always observed, but he
says (2nd ed. top of p. 626; repeated from the 1st ed.), "Some there
are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend
that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers."

Yes, the commas should be an indicator, but often there are commas anyway
because of some intervening parenthetical phrase/clause. The ambiguity
rarely surfaces in my own writing, but when I'm editing someone else's
writing and am not confident of the writer's intent...

And I don't see how that's backward, since I would not ever use "that" in
a
nonrestrictive clause.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org

messageI think that's backwards ... anyway non-restrictive relatives have
commas around them, restrictive relatives don't.

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

No, I can't provide an example where "which" would clarify an ambiguity. It
just avoids commitment! In a situation where there is already a comma (for
other reasons), so that it's not clear whether it's punctuated as
restrictive or nonrestrictive, I can avoid coming down on one side or the
other. Cowardly, I admit. <g>

It's not just German, of course, that uses commas everywhere. You see this
in eighteenth-century English as well. And not just with relative clauses.
Were it not for the comma in the absolute construction "A well-regulated
militia, being necessary...," there would be a lot less quibbling about "the
right to bear arms."

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

Okay, I guess I'm not seeing what we disagree on here. I prefer to use
"which" for nonrestrictive clauses and "that" for restrictive. Herb
evidently has the same preference and so is changing "which" to "that" in
restrictive clauses. You say that "which" is equally correct. I'm not
disputing that, merely saying that I personally prefer "that" and think
"which" sounds stilted. What I don't understand about your initial reply
is
what you consider "backward" about changing "which" to "that."

Oh, wait, I think I see what you mean. What you were saying was "backward"
was this statement: "The only time I'll use 'which' is when there's
ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not." In the context,
I
Yes

thought it was clear that what I meant was something like: "The only time
I'll use 'which' [instead of 'that' in a restrictive clause] is when
there's
ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not."

In other words, I invariably use "which" for nonrestrictive clauses and
ordinarily use "that" for restrictive clauses but may use "which" in a
restrictive clause if there is some ambiguity about it or (additionally)

Do you have an example where "restrictive 'which'" could clarify an
ambiguity?

when there is another "that" in the sentence so close that the compounding
of "thats" is awkward (and of course "that which" is an exception as
well).

Yes, the compounding of "that"s is the most usual reason for using
"which." But also a preponderance of th-sounds, or even too many short-
a sounds in the paragraph.

As for ambiguity, sometimes an editor is faced with a situation in which
an
author has used "which" without a preceding comma. From previous
experience
with the author's prose and punctuation, the editor knows that the writer
is
not good with commas, so the absence of a comma doesn't necessary mean
that
the clause is restrictive, nor does the use of "which" guarantee that it's
nonrestrictive. Often it's difficult to determine the writer's intent.

One of my professors (a native speaker of Hungarian who had lived in
the US for 20 years when we first met, and in Paris for ten years
before that), who was an excellent English stylist, said that the one
thing she absolutely could not fathom was the restrictive/
nonrestrictive distinction. (In German, they put commas around both
kinds. In French they far more often use participial phrases instead
of relative clauses generally.)

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org

messageWhat Herb said is he "change incorrect whiches to thats," and that
can only mean changing restrictive relatives introduced by "which."
You said you'd only use "which" when there's potential ambiguity as to
whether it's restrictive or not -- but introducing a restrictive with
"which" _could_ make it read as a non-restrictive (since "that" can't
be used with a non-restrictive).

Fowler would _prefer_ the distinction to be always observed, but he
says (2nd ed. top of p. 626; repeated from the 1st ed.), "Some there
are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend
that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers."

Yes, the commas should be an indicator, but often there are commas
anyway
because of some intervening parenthetical phrase/clause. The ambiguity
rarely surfaces in my own writing, but when I'm editing someone else's
writing and am not confident of the writer's intent...

And I don't see how that's backward, since I would not ever use "that"
in
a
nonrestrictive clause.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org

messageI think that's backwards ... anyway non-restrictive relatives have
commas around them, restrictive relatives don't.

 

[Kimmie B]

Suzanne figured it out!

We are using Word 2003. Under Tools > Options > Compatibility, select Word
2003 rather than Custom.

The problem resolved itself immediately.

Kudos to Suzanne!

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

To follow up, the document had a "Custom" setting for Compatibility Options
with number of settings referring to Asian text; I suspect one of those was
the culprit, but Kimmie and the document author found it easier to just
change the settings wholesale, to Word 2003, which eliminated the problem.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

 

[Kimmie B]

The culprit was found to be the ‘Balance SBCS characters and DBCS characters’
option. Asian characters seem not to have anything to do with the problem.

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

I think that *is* an Asian character option, though. According to
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/288792, that option is "Not used in U.S.
English Word." See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBCS

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org